Firm + product analysis

Clydesdale Bank Plc in Banking and credit

A curated public analysis of Clydesdale Bank Plc's published Financial Ombudsman decisions in Banking and credit, including outcome context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.

Page summary

1,113 published FOS decisions involving Clydesdale Bank Plc in Banking and credit, with upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.

Published decisions

1,113

Decision volume in this firm-product slice

Upheld rate

18.4%

205 upheld decisions

Latest published decision 09 Aug 2021

Published decisions

1,113

Decision volume in this firm-product slice

Upheld rate

18.4%

205 upheld decisions

Latest active year

2021

9 decisions

Leading complaint theme

Delay In Claim Handling

189 tagged decisions

Clydesdale Bank Plc in Banking and credit

Clydesdale Bank Plc appears in 1,113 published decisions in Banking and credit across this corpus. 18.4% of those decisions were upheld, making this one of the strongest public firm-product slices available for search and research.

The latest year represented in this slice is 2021, with 9 published decisions and an upheld rate of 33.3%.

  • Leading complaint theme: Delay In Claim Handling
  • Leading precedent signal: Consumer Credit Act 1974
  • Advisor risk signal for Banking and credit: low

How the slice behaves over time

Clydesdale Bank Plc has a multi-year published decision trail in Banking and credit, which makes it possible to judge whether complaint exposure has been persistent or concentrated into a smaller set of years.

Banking and credit remains a meaningful part of Clydesdale Bank Plc's published complaint exposure, but this page isolates just that one product line instead of blending it with the firm's wider footprint.

  • 2021: 9 decisions, 33.3% upheld
  • 2020: 38 decisions, 21.1% upheld
  • 2019: 78 decisions, 5.1% upheld
  • 2018: 117 decisions, 15.4% upheld
  • 2017: 152 decisions, 19.1% upheld

Themes, precedent context, and handling implications

Delay In Claim Handling is the clearest complaint-theme signal in this firm-product slice, which helps explain what tends to drive published ombudsman decisions here.

The product advisory layer also points to recurring handling implications, including review consumer credit act 1974 precedent (appears in 4.5% of cases), review section 75 cca precedent (appears in 3.6% of cases), review conc precedent (appears in 1.5% of cases), and others.

  • Second complaint theme: Fraud Or Scam Concern

Representative cases

Recent published decisions in this slice

5 examples shown

DRN020073809 Aug 2021Not upheld

Clydesdale Bank Plc · Banking and credit

Mr R complains that Clydesdale Bank Plc trading as Virgin Money won’t refund a payment made on his credit card to a secondary ticket selling website (“the Website”) for a ticket to an event abroad. background In June 2017 one ticket was purchased through the Website to attend an event abro... (4 pages)

View source decision
DRN185776830 Jul 2021Not upheld

Clydesdale Bank Plc · Banking and credit

Mr and Mrs W complain that Clydesdale Bank Plc did not help recover the money (and winnings) paid to an online gambling company that turned out to be a scam. As Mrs W had all the dealings with Clydesdale Bank Plc, for ease of reading, I’ll refer to all submissions as having come from Mrs W... (3 pages)

View source decision
DRN872747330 Jun 2021Upheld

Clydesdale Bank Plc · Banking and credit

Mr L complains that Clydesdale Bank Plc won’t refund money he lost when he was the victim of a scam. background Mr L was involved in an online relationship with a woman we now know to be a scammer. The woman told him she had inherited a significant amount of money from her father, but that... (4 pages)

View source decision
DRN340823403 Jun 2021Upheld

Clydesdale Bank Plc · Banking and credit

Mr and Mrs B complain about their mortgage with Clydesdale Bank Plc trading as Virgin Money. They’re unhappy it hasn’t offered them new interest rates. background Mr and Mrs B took their mortgage with Northern Rock around fifteen years ago. In 2008 and 2010, Mr and Mrs B took further borro... (4 pages)

View source decision
DRN514927627 Apr 2021Not upheld

Clydesdale Bank Plc · Banking and credit

Mr S complains that Clydesdale Bank Plc won’t reimburse him for transactions he says he didn’t make or otherwise authorise. background Mr S had a current account with Clydesdale Bank Plc. In May 2018, he was on a stag weekend with 11 others abroad. On 9 May 2018 prior to leaving, he bought... (6 pages)

View source decision